2013 Wakimoto.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.

Abstract

Objective – To determine the number of ethnographic studies of
libraries and library users, where these studies are published, how researchers
define ethnography, and which methods are used by the researchers.

Design – Literature survey.

Setting – The researchers are located at Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Subjects – 81 ethnographic studies of libraries and library
users.

Methods – The researchers conducted a literature survey,
starting with a pilot study of selected library and information science (LIS)
journals, to find ethnographic studies and to determine key terms in research
using ethnographic methods. The researchers used these terms in the main study
to identify more LIS research using ethnographic methods. The same journals
used in the pilot study were then searched online as part of the main study,
along with three LIS databases (LISA, LISTA, LLIS). The researchers also
searched the open web in order to capture grey literature in the LIS field. All
literature found, including those sources found through secondary citations,
was screened for inclusion in coding. Studies with non-LIS settings were
excluded as were studies that utilized non-ethnographic methods. The screened
studies were coded to determine categories of methods used.

Main Results – The researchers found 81 articles, reports, and
conference presentations that used ethnographic methods, which they compiled
into a bibliography. This is an order of magnitude larger than that found by
previous literature surveys. Of these studies, 51.9% were published after 2005.
The majority (64.2%) of the studies were published in journals. Many studies
did not provide clear or detailed definitions of ethnography and the
definitions that were provided varied widely. The researchers identified themes
which had been used to support ethnographic methods as a research methodology.
These included using ethnographic methods to gain richer insight into the
subjects’ experiences, to collect authentic data on the subjects’ experiences,
and to allow flexibility in the methods chosen. They also included the use of
multiple data collection methods to enable data triangulation. The five main
method categories found in the literature were: observation, interviews,
fieldwork, focus groups, and cultural probes.

Conclusion – Based on
the relatively large number of ethnographic studies identified when compared to
previous literature surveys and on the upward trend of publication of
ethnographic research over the past five years, the authors noted that their
overview study (and resultant compilation of literature from disparate sources)
was important and time-saving for researchers who use or are beginning to use
ethnography as a research methodology.

Commentary

This study provides an overview of research in the LIS
field using ethnographic methods, which is published in many disparate sources.
As such, it is situated to extend LIS research literature and align it with
other social sciences, such as anthropology and sociology, which often use
ethnographic methods. The researchers position their study as novel, given that
no other researcher or research team has yet completed a comprehensive survey
and bibliography of research using ethnographic methods in the LIS field. As
the researchers were able to identify 81 studies that used ethnographic
methods, there is obvious interest in the LIS field in researching multiple
aspects of libraries and library users using these methods. As a starting point
for background research on previous studies using ethnographic methods, it is a
useful article for librarian practitioners.

The study is well-written and the
researchers clearly define their research questions and link their results back
to these questions. They also acknowledge the limitations of the study and how
the study will need to be updated to keep current with the expanding literature
using ethnographic methods. The study is valid using the critical appraisal
tool by Glynn (2006) for calculating study validity, if it is assumed that the
researchers analyzed studies for use of ethnographic methods and not studies
that were themselves ethnographies. There is the possible issue of conflating
ethnographic studies with studies using ethnographic methods throughout the
study. Ethnographic methods, such as interviews and observation, are used by
many types of qualitative methodologies (Berg, 2007) that would not be
considered ethnographies. The researchers appeared to use the phrases
“ethnographic studies” and “ethnographic methods” interchangeably throughout
the study, although these are two different concepts.

A question raised by the lack of precision
in using the phrases “ethnographic studies” and “ethnographic methods” is the
categorization of studies as ethnographies when the researchers never identified
their studies as ethnographies or their methods as ethnographic (Briden & Marshall, 2010; Cmor,
Chan, & Kong, 2010). More information about the definitions of ethnography
found in the literature would have been useful, especially those definitions
that were “induced indirectly” from the literature studies (p. 84). These
issues could have resulted in the researchers’ overestimation in the number of
ethnographic studies in the LIS literature, while at the same time accurately
recording the number of studies that used ethnographic methods.

These issues aside, this study’s extensive
bibliography will be useful to those who want an overview of some of the most
popular qualitative methods used in LIS research and to those contemplating
using ethnographic methods. The compiled bibliography of research studies is a
valuable reference and starting point for those interested in learning more
about the application of qualitative methods in LIS research settings,
especially in the area of observation and interviews. Through reading the cited
literature, librarians will gain a better understanding of various qualitative
methodologies used in LIS research and thereby be better able to select an
appropriate methodology for their next research project.